This might help Jerry with his homework: From my “Plantinga in the Quote Mine and Epistemological Creationism http://wp.me/p21T1L-b1” ; Plantinga indulging in a shocking piece of quotemining, to distort Darwin’s views on the limitations of the evolved mind and make them match his own:

I wrote “He manages to invoke Darwin himself to support his position, with this excerpt from a letter to William Graham:

[Quote]With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [End quote]

The quotation is genuine, but the meaning is completely distorted, by suppressing its context. Consider the passage in full:

[Quote] Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [End quote]

So the question Darwin was addressing is very narrow and specific; whether we can trust minds evolved from those of animals when they lead us to believe that the Universe had a creator. In other cases where Darwin doubts the reliability of our minds, he is addressing exactly the same question as here, which must have preoccupied him over many years. There is no honest way of recruiting Darwin to support the view that our evolved animal nature makes our minds unreliable on any lesser topic. Yet Plantinga manages to say (Warrant and Proper Function p 219[5]), almost immediately after his truncated quotation,

[Quote] Darwin and Churchland seem to believe that (naturalistic) evolution gives one a reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produce for the most part true beliefs: call this ‘Darwin’s Doubt’” [end quote]

Sorry to break in here, but it’s easier than finding your email address and somewhat more likely that you’ll read it.

Over at Science League of America, Peter Hess has posted an interesting claim, that some people make “…one significant assumption: in order to contribute to modern science you have to be an atheist.”

And when asked for an example of a person who does that, he gave your name. I find that difficult to believe, but perhaps you could make some kind of statement to clarify.

SLoA does seem to put up a lot of accommodationist stuff, one trope of which is that creationists and atheists, oops, I mean militant atheists, not the nice, friendly, sad kind, are equally silly extremists. And here we seem to have another example.